County board OKs bonds, Olympian Drive resolution
URBANA -- Champaign County Board members approved issuing $2.4 million in capital improvement revenue bonds Thursday to build an addition to Countryside School, a private elementary school in Champaign.
The county will not be responsible for repayment of the bonds to finance construction of a gymnasium/performance arts stage at the school at 4301 W. Kirby Ave.
Only Champaign Democrats Lorraine Cowart and Astrid Berkson voted against the measure, which passed 25-2.
The board also narrowly adopted a resolution approving an intergovernmental agreement with the cities of Champaign and Urbana for the design, construction and maintenance of the proposed Olympian Drive project north of Champaign-Urbana. Action on the more controversial portion of the multimillion-dollar project -- a North Lincoln Avenue link between Interstate 74 and Olympian Drive -- is scheduled to come before the board next month.
The board unanimously approved the appointment of Aaron Esry of St. Joseph to the county board representing District 4. Esry, a Republican, replaces Greg Knott, who resigned from the board earlier to run for the Parkland College board of trustees.
Also Thursday, Rick Winkel, chair of the county board redistricting commission, made a presentation on the process that led to the recommendation of a new county board map, known as 1E Revision 1. The board questioned Winkel and vice chair Esther Patt for more than 90 minutes. A public hearing and discussion on the proposed map is scheduled for next Tuesday, and a vote on the map is set for May 3.
All 27 board members were in attendance.
MoreWhy is the county board helping to finance private businesses? Isn't a municipal bond backed solely by that private business' revenues going to attract the same interest rates as that private business could get one their own? I'm not seeing what value the board is adding nor what sorts of business investments warrant the board's support. Should the Silver Bullet be able to get a loan to expand their business? How about some theoretical racist group expanding their space?
Countryside is not a "private business" - it is a not-for-profit, 501(c)(3), non-sectarian, independent school. And the county is not subsidizing it in any way, nor is it taking on any financial risk whatsoever. The County is simply a pass-through mechanism for allowing the school to issue tax-exempt bonds. Given how valuable this school is to our community, this seems like an easy call. Indeed, I would be shocked and dismayed if the County Board had not seen fit to do this, as it is not cost to the county, but brings numerous benefits to the county.
Go to the Country Side School website. Look at the admissions policy;and tuition costs. Also, checkout the tuition assistance program. If you can afford to spend $10,000 plus a year on your child, or grandchild's education; and if the child has abilities; it is a good choice. Whether a public body should front the bonds for the private school is for the public to discuss; but for their elected officials to decide. The public should question the decision with the individual elected officials regarding their motivations which led to the decision.
Clarification--the state statue concerning the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds was expanded to an extent that a school such as Countryside could use this type of bond that offers a much lower interest rate. There was a public hearing last night at 6:45 P held by the county board. No one single member of the community took advantage of that time to expressed pros and cons. In addition, there was an opportunity on 12 April during the County Board committee of the whole at public participation when the request for these bonds was presented by Earl Hefley for citizens of the county to express pros and cons. No one took advantage of this opportunity. All of the CB materials are on the web site so the public will be aware of the issues before the board.
@Citizen_100: A 501c3 is not a government (public) entity so it is therefore private. It sells a product (education) and so is therefore a business. If the bonds will be non-taxable, the county is subsidizing it through foregone federal and state taxes on the investors' interest income which diminishes local tax sharing income and increases everyone's tax obligations. Although not a financial burden, the county's name is also put on the line through its affiliation with the bonds and any potential for default.
@Drew: Public schools have municipal bond issuing authority and so they could issue non-taxable bonds under their own name at any time.
@pattsi: I understand that state law allows a public body to allow a private business to leverage its municipal bond authority but I'd argue that this should not be allowed. If we want public funds to support private schools, we need to come out and support vouchers. This seems like a backwards way of going about that. I must confess that I am just getting around to following county board activities and have not followed agendas or board meetings terribly closely. However, I must seriously question the capabilities of board members to make good decisions when they're (indirectly) using taxpayer money to subsidize a school which is in competition with a taxpayer-subsidized school district. I shouldn't have to point this out at a public hearing, it should be obvious, and a failure of this nature makes me concerned about the board's ability to make decisions on much more important matters. I guess I'll have to follow matters more closely and participate more, although that continues to represent a failure of my representatives (and therefore the voters such as myself that elect them) when I have to be more regularly involved.
I don't mean to come off as against the school itself as I know nothing of it. I'm speaking more generally in regard to the appropriateness of some activities which I believe would be best left to the private sector.
Some points of clarification. The County's tax revenue is not reduced in any way by the issuance of the bonds. The interest income to the holders of the bonds is not State tax-exempt, and therefore it does not reduce the County's share of State revenue. Federal revenue-sharing to local governments ended in the 1980's and therefore the federal tax exemption for IRB interest does not reduce the County's revenue.
Industrial Revenue Bonds under Illinois law are designed to encourage employment. This multimillion dollar project will employ local architects, engineers, contractors, suppliers, and labor at prevailing wages. This economic boost to the local economy will result in increased tax revenue to Champaign County.
It may not reduce the County's revenue but it does increase every taxpayer's federal tax burden (or future tax burden). Why should Joe the Ohioan plumber be forced to pay any amount to subsidize a private school in Champaign, IL? Or put another way, are you content to give up your hard earned income as tax dollars to subsidize project xyz in thousands of cities across the country per year?
I find it hard to believe that this project would not be possible without this tax exemption. I believe the additional interest of a standard corporate bond would be just about $12600 per year and if that's a make or break amount for the school than I'd question whether they are financially stable enough to be spending $2.4M in the first place.
I'm all for smart investments of tax dollars to encourage an overall improvement in the economy but it seems counterproductive to subsidize a private business in competition with a public one. Wouldn't the $12600 be better invested in improvements to our public schools? Wouldn't it be better to come from local tax dollars since it is substantially of local benefit? Jobs just to have jobs doesn't make a productive economy. Paying someone to pump your gas when you're more than capable of doing so yourself (and could then use that saved money to buy more food, cars, etc which produce a real increase to the economy) doesn't make sense. Neither does building or expanding a school that is a duplication of services already provided at public expense. Now as a private business they have every right to build it but they shouldn't expect taxpayers to subsidize their activities.
Comments
News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.